Ilford Pan F Plus—developing time?

[ka7197]

Decades ago, I was using and developing Ilford Pan F, FP4, and HP5 films without any issues. Then came along digital, and I stopped using film for ten years.

Recently, I re-started using film, and my preferred B/W films of yore are now adorned with "Plus." And now I am having a problem. Everything is fine when developing FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus according to the Ilford data sheets. But Pan F Plus always comes out way too thin.

The data sheets say, 6:30 min for Pan F Plus at E.I. 50 in ID-11 stock solution at 20 °C and Ilford-style agitation. But the negatives are so weak they're next to impossible to scan or print. At first, I thought it was my fault and I did something wrong. But after several films, in both 135 and 120 formats, I am sure it's not me.

Even at 7:00 min it still is waay too thin. Now I developed a Pan F Plus for whopping 9:30 min in ID-11 stock (as opposed to 6:30 min), and finally it came out fine! Well ... slightly overcooked, actually, yet much better than before. I shall try 9:00 min the next time.

To be clear—the times from the Ilford data sheets are accurate and yield good results with FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus films. Only Pan F Plus has issues. Has anyone noticed the same problem?

 

[Bill Clark]

Weird.

I see 1+1 with ID-11 is 8.5 minutes.

For me, when I use Pan F Plus I usually go with 1+1 or 1+3 with ID-11.

But I also like Rodinal using stand develop with Pan F Plus.

It’s gotta be camera, developer, time and temp one of those or a combo.

I usually use the 1+1 or 1+3 times as I find with the dilution the times are longer and more forgiving for errors with the above components.

 

[ka7197]

I see 1+1 with ID-11 is 8.5 minutes.

That's right. But this also will yield very thin negatives.

For me, when I use Pan F Plus I usually go with 1+1 or 1+3 with ID-11.

So did I. Only recently I switched to using stock solution (for ten films 135-36 or 120 per liter, re-using the stock and increasing the base time by 10 % after each film).

But that's not the point. No matter whether I use stock, 1+1, or 1+3—for me, Pan F Plus will always come out way too thin (unlike the other Ilford films) when sticking to the Ilford data sheets! And I wonder if I'm the only person having this problem.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I just yesterday dev'd my first 4 rolls of Pan F 50, 1 roll shot in M2, using a handheld meter, and 3 rolls in M6ttl. ID11 1+1 8.5 min. Not thin, plenty of density, especially in the M6, but I tend to overexpose when using the handheld, so they were a bit thinner, but not "thin".

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've done a lot of work with Pan-F in different developers. The problem is that in D-76 or ID-11, the film's true speed is 25. Expose at 25 and use Ilford's times and you'll get good negs. Don't expose at 50 and extend developing time; that will give you too much contrast and too little shadow detail.

 

[sepiareverb]

And PanF+ needs to be developed in a timely fashion. At 8-10 weeks latent image begins to lose oomph.

I prefer DD-X 1:4 for PanF+. I expose at 40.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Chris, you have been a proponent of using factory speeds and timings, and I agree. Why now do you give Ilford's chart on Pan F 50 the turn-over? Is this an error on Ilfords part?

I've done a lot of work with Pan-F in different developers. The problem is that in D-76 or ID-11, the film's true speed is 25. Expose at 25 and use Ilford's times and you'll get good negs. Don't expose at 50 and extend developing time; that will give you too much contrast and too little shadow detail.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris, you have been a proponent of using factory speeds and timings, and I agree. Why now do you give Ilford's chart on Pan F 50 the turn-over? Is this an error on Ilfords part?

I've never been a proponent of using box speeds because my testing shows them to be marketing fantasy in most cases.

If you look at my developing times page, very, VERY few films tested out to give a true speed matching what the box said. Most are slower. How much depends on the film and the developer.

What I recommend is using the developing times Ilford and Kodak give as starting points. I have found them to usually be correct for contrast, but requiring more exposure.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Chris, I do remember you stated that the factory speeds and times were better as a "starting point" than the Massive Dev. Chart. Sorry for the major "misquote"

I find it interesting that, with this first roll, I would hand-meter at iso 50 and over expose 1 stop, and my son, shooting on the M6ttl set at 50, and get a slightly denser negative, same photo outing.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris, I do remember you stated that the factory speeds and times were better as a "starting point" than the Massive Dev. Chart. Sorry for the major "misquote"

I find it interesting that, with this first roll, I would hand-meter at iso 50 and over expose 1 stop, and my son, shooting on the M6ttl set at 50, and get a slightly denser negative, same photo outing.

Lots of possibilities for your exposure differences. Maybe one of the meters needs calibrated. Could be metering technique, too. The M6 has a reflected light meter that only reads in a large spot in the center of the frame. If your handheld meter was an incident meter rather than a reflected meter, or it was a reflected meter that you pointed at a different part of the scene, you'll get different exposures.

 

[DMA1965]

This is one of my favorite films and also one where stand development in Rodinal reigns supreme. I use a Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes, with two inversions at the 20 minute and 40 minute marks. Negatives come out perfect with amazing tonal range and super fine grain